Marathon Pundit: NLRB overreach: SEIU turkey appetizer edition

Monday, November 21, 2011

NLRB overreach: SEIU turkey appetizer edition

Zion National Park

The short Thanksgiving work week has begun--but the long battle against NLRB overreach continues.

First, a pre-turkey day appetizer:

SEIU President Arrested At OWS Protest: "We Are The 99 Percent":

"Mary Kay Henry, the president of the nationwide Service Employees International Union, was among the 200 protesters arrested Thursday in New York. Henry was marching with Occupy Wall Street activists who were celebrating the two-month anniversary of the protest by attempting to shut down the New York Stock Exchange while spreading hate and discontent. In addition to Henry, George Gresham, president of 1199/S.E.I.U., United Healthcare Workers East was also arrested. 'We are the 99 percent,' Henry laughably chanted as she was being arrested." (Joe Newby, "SEIU President Arrested At Occupy Wall Street Protest," Spokane Examiner, 11/18/11)

Now the indigestion:

SEIU President Made Quarter Million In 2010, With Household Income Totaling More Than $350,000:

"Trumka, 61, had total compensation of $283,340, including $246,827 in salary, according to a union filing with the Labor Department. Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry had compensation of $253,660, including $213,801 in salary, according to a filing." (Stephanie Armour, "Unions Criticize 'Runaway' Pay," Bloomberg, 4/25/11)

For many people, Thanksgiving means football. (Yes, it should be about thankfulness.) The NLRB is implementing its hurry-up offense.

From AP:

The National Labor Relations Board is rushing to approve new rules before the end of the year that would make it easier for unions to organize new members.

Little Gippers pre-school,
Calumet, Michigan

The board announced Friday that it plans to hold a public vote on Nov. 30. Its Democratic majority is expected to approve a plan that could dramatically shorten the time frame for union elections.

The rules would be more limited than the sweeping plan proposed earlier this summer, a move designed to let the board approve them more quickly.

Business groups have denounced the plan, saying the new rules would allow so-called "ambush elections" that don't give company managers enough time to counter organizing drives.

But the House is putting up a sturdy defense.

From The Hill:

The House on Friday afternoon approved a rule allowing for debate and vote on legislation that would overturn a pending National Labor Relations Board proposal to speed up union elections.

The House approved the rule for the bill, H.R. 3094, in a 239-167 vote.

The NLRB over the summer proposed a rule requiring union elections as early as 10 days after a petition is submitted. In contrast, the bill would give companies 14 days to find representation, and ensure that no union election could take place until at least 35 days after a petition is submitted.

Approval of the rule allows the House to start debate on the bill as soon as it returns from the Thanksgiving break.

But will an NFL-style situation-substitution, or should I say subtraction, scuttle this overreach?

From, good Lord, the über-liberal In These Times:

On November 30, the National Labor Relations Board is scheduled to vote on proposed rule changes that would speed up union elections by disallowing some appeals until after a workplace vote occurs. Employers typically aim to delay an election so that they can use the time to intimidate employees to voting against a union.

But that vote may never take place, because some conservative members of Congress are pushing a plan that would force the NLRB, which is an independent federal agency tasked with enforcing labor law, to shut down. There are currently three people serving on the NLRB; if that is reduced by one, the body will be unable to issue valid rulings.

In New Process Steel, L.P. vs National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the NLRB cannot decide cases with only two members on the NLRB. For 27 months, during the last year of President Bush's term and the first 14 months of the Obama administration, the NLRB only had two members (a Democrat and a Republican). The two members agreed to work together on common sense cases where they could easily agree on a ruling; they passed judgment in nearly 600 cases.

But the Supreme Court invalidated all those rulings because they were made with only two members. Therefore, some conservative politicians such as South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and prominent right-wing blogs such as RedState.com are pushing for Republican NLRB Board Member Brian Hayes to resign before the vote for the rules is issued on November 30, which would effectively shut down the agency.

Tim Scott calls it as he sees it. Once again, from The Hill:

Freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said Friday morning that the House should approve legislation scaling back proposed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules allowing for faster union elections, in part because the NLRB has "lost its marbles."

Scott quoted an email, made public earlier this year by Judicial Watch, in which acting NLRB general counsel Lafe Solomon responded to an article critical of the NLRB by joking that he and a colleague should now try to destroy the European economy, having already destroyed the American economy.

"I want you to hear this clearly, I'm going to say it slowly, because we need to understand and appreciate that the NLRB has lost its marbles, without any question," Scott said on the floor. He then read the email, in which Solomon said to a colleague: "The article gave me a new idea. You go to Geneva, and I get a job with Airbus. We screwed up the U.S. economy, and now we can tackle Europe."

"Only in an alternate universe is this funny or does it make any sense whatsoever," Scott said.

And finally, an idea on job creation from the Washington Times:

When Boeing opened a $750 million plant in South Carolina - triggering a legal battle with the National Labor Relations Board - it became Exhibit A for why job creation is more likely to occur in states where union membership is optional.

Thomas Holmes, an economist at the University of Minnesota, studied job growth of counties in right-to-work states (where union membership can't be compulsory) directly across the border from counties in forced-union states. Between 1947 and 1992, the growth rate of manufacturing employment was an overwhelming 26 percentage points higher in the right-to-work counties.

Whether that difference in employment is due solely to right-to-work laws or a combination of pro-growth policies is a matter for debate. But Paul Kersey, director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center, seems to have put it best when he concluded in a separate analysis, "right-to-work laws do wonders for job creation, especially in manufacturing."